First, I think the jury made the right call as much as I'd like to see Zimmerman thrown into the slammer and left to rot. Given the charges and circumstances and my general knowledge of the whole ordeal, it seems that they made the right call. That, however, does not change the fact that Zimmerman is human scum. The dude instigated the whole situation by pretending he was a superhero because of his "neighborhood watch" moniker: stalking, belittling, intimidating and harassing Martin because.......he was walking through his neighborhood. He had been asked by the dispatcher to stop following Martin after he'd called 911, although following people is apparently perfectly legal in Florida if you have "suspicion" despite it being an amazingly retarded law. Afterwards stating, "These assholes, they always get away" to the dispatcher, so it's clear he was looking for trouble. I already stated in the FFA how I feel about anyone giving Zimmerman a heroic label, so there's that.

I generally agree with what Earthcubed said about the actual shooting despite his Earthcubedisms. Zimmerman would've suffered serious injury or death if Martin continued slugging him or slamming his head in or whatever, and if that really did happen, then that's self-defense in the eyes of the law. If I recall an expert witness said Zimmerman's head injuries didn't match his story. Not one-hundred percent sure on that, but I thought I read something about some inconsistencies in his story that an expert witness exploited during the trial.

Napero's gun post is fantastic; I agree one-hundred percent. The gun acted as the equalizer in the situation, and I sincerely doubt he'd have ignited the situation without it. I guess weapons magically turn people into Captain America.

By the way, everything Cenk Uygur said in that video is far from "idiotically liberal."

_________________

Ismetal wrote:

GuntherTheUndying IS THE GAY NUMBER 1, HE DOESNT LIKE TO READ THE TRUTH, SO I THINK THIS PAGE IS FOR GAYS WHO WANTS TO READ MESSAGES LIKE "I LOVE MY BAND", "THEY ARE MY LOVE"

To clarify a bit, things actually vary by a huge amount from state to state in the US. Some US states have more strict gun control laws than others. This can cover a wide range of things, too, such as what types of guns are legal to own, how easy it is to purchase guns and whether or not you're permitted to carry one in public (either concealed or openly). Some places are extremely strict. For instance, the laws in Washington DC sound pretty similar to what you described in Chile, with almost no one having the ability to carry a concealed handgun with a tiny number of exceptions.

However, Florida has pretty loose gun control laws in general, which, combined with the controversial Stand Your Ground law (which allows you to use deadly force in self defense even if deadly force isn't necessarily being used against you) allows for situations like this to happen. There are even more extreme examples, such as Texas, where you can legally shoot to kill thieves, even if they're not on your property or stealing your stuff:

I tend to forget that US is a federal country, where it means that each state is like a mini country with their own laws - at least it seems to be like that with penal ones. We once had death penalty and everything went way better than now.

I think Zimmerman should have some kind of penalty cause he had some hand on what happened: he could have avoided the outcome of all this if he took other actions, but not murder.

I'd just like to say that the majority of the posters in this thread have restored my faith in humanity. Responses elsewhere on the Internet are, well, disheartening...

I guess I'd say 'not guilty' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'innocent.' And it looks as though neither Zimmerman nor Martin were innocent in this case. Truth be told, however, the media made a mess of this whole thing; the spin has made it incredibly hard to parse actual fact.

I never understood why you'd carry a gun only.Seems awful tragic to me that confrontational, pissy bullshit like this needed to end in death, when a stun gun would have sufficed to bail that massive pussy out when a fight he provokes goes badly for him.

The legal and moral aspects of this case are different… The prosecution couldn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so legally, you cannot convict. But morally speaking, Zimmerman is not blameless. An unarmed kid is dead because he ignored the 911 operator and continued harassing a kid who had every right to walk through his father’s neighborhood.

Most of what I think has been mentioned already. I am going to touch on the gun issue though. Everything else aside, I would say that Zimmerman would definitely have NOT tried to be a clown if he wasn't armed. This is what guns do to idiots with small-egos, it makes them feel powerful and confident enough to throw themselves into situations that they aren't trained or smart enough to handle. If a similar idiot with a gun sees a thief running away and decides to play cowboys, a badly-placed shot could just as easily kill a bystander(you'd be surprised how difficult it is to draw a bead on a moving target, no matter how close).

I was very surprised by the verdict, not because I'm one of those people who are baying for his blood but because of the way the case was reported in Ireland. It was made out almost as if he was going to get done due to certain evidence. I know very little about this case it seems but there was an antagonistic aspect to Zimmermans actions that provoked Martin into violence. I would have done the same as Martin given the situation. I think manslaughter or 2nd degree murder should be the verdict for Zimmerman but given the differing laws in Florida and the lack of real hard evidence it pains me to say I think the jury got it right.

I don't know too much about the trial, but, according to my grandparents, both prosecution and defense had used the wrong picture of Martin. Apparently the prosecution used a picture of him at 12 and passed it off as a current picture, while the defense used a picture of a rapper with the same name.I might need to actually dig into this story. Definitely one of the biggest cases in awhile.

_________________

Murtal wrote:

In flames became MeloDICK Death Metal

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:

Also hopefully they take it as a sign they're not meant to make more albums.

There are now protests in LA over the verdict. One of the protest scenes turned violent when, big surprise, the police started shooting rubber bullets at the non-violent, non-provoking protesters.

Quote:

But when the Fowler continued on to Crenshaw Blvd. with the other protesters, things got violent. According to Fowler, police officers split the large march into smaller groups, and she was one of about 100 that headed down a side street. Despite the fact that they were peaceful and on the sidewalk, said Fowler, police still shot rubber bullets into the crowd.

"We stood there, about 100 of us, unarmed, peaceful, face to face with riot police, when the police suddenly started shooting," wrote Fowler. "My friend dragged me out of the way and the girl in front of me -- Liz -- and her boyfriend Jeff were shot in the face by rubber bullets." Fowler said in a tweet that she is 18 weeks pregnant, and that the rubber bullets narrowly missed her.

_________________

Earthcubed wrote:

I'm just perpetually annoyed by Sean William Scott and he's never been in a movie where I wasn't rooting for his head to sever by strange means.

Man, obviously if that story is true then the police shouldn't have been firing rubber bullets at the crowd, but at the same time if you go to a protest with a high potential to turn violent while you're pregnant, you're a fucking idiot.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

I'd just like to say that the majority of the posters in this thread have restored my faith in humanity. Responses elsewhere on the Internet are, well, disheartening...

I guess I'd say 'not guilty' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'innocent.' And it looks as though neither Zimmerman nor Martin were innocent in this case. Truth be told, however, the media made a mess of this whole thing; the spin has made it incredibly hard to parse actual fact.

I've noticed that several Right Wingers are actually upset because there haven't been too many riots so they can 'prove' that blacks are violent and inferior. They're frustrated over this. They're also trying to blow up every riot that actually happens.http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/ ... riots.htmlI've also been reading Stormfront and was not surprised by the reactions. For those who don't know, Stormfront's a neo-nazi website. I've also checked RevLeft and was also not surprised. For those who don't know, RevLeft's a communist website.

_________________You say "Justin Bieber", I say... OK. So?92% of teens have cleanly divided themselves according to genres. If you're part of the 8% that doesn't give a shit why others listen to their music, then I don't care. Just enjoy the damn music.

There are now protests in LA over the verdict. One of the protest scenes turned violent when, big surprise, the police started shooting rubber bullets at the non-violent, non-provoking protesters.

Quote:

But when the Fowler continued on to Crenshaw Blvd. with the other protesters, things got violent. According to Fowler, police officers split the large march into smaller groups, and she was one of about 100 that headed down a side street. Despite the fact that they were peaceful and on the sidewalk, said Fowler, police still shot rubber bullets into the crowd.

"We stood there, about 100 of us, unarmed, peaceful, face to face with riot police, when the police suddenly started shooting," wrote Fowler. "My friend dragged me out of the way and the girl in front of me -- Liz -- and her boyfriend Jeff were shot in the face by rubber bullets." Fowler said in a tweet that she is 18 weeks pregnant, and that the rubber bullets narrowly missed her.

Im glad they fucking shot them. I would be super pissed if I was one of the people that had to wait. How were the police supposed to know that that girl was pregnant? She shouldn't have been at the fucking protest to begin with.

Man, obviously if that story is true then the police shouldn't have been firing rubber bullets at the crowd, but at the same time if you go to a protest with a high potential to turn violent while you're pregnant, you're a fucking idiot.

While participating in anything potentially dangerous in any way during pregnancy is not the smartest move possible, I'm pretty sure you have the right to think you won't get fucking shot at by the police during a 100% peaceful manifestation in a supposedly democratic country.

Not sure why everyone is so upset about the "poor innocent unarmed kid"

Typical smear campaign penned by radical right-wingers that's clearly rooted in conspiracy and a lack of evidence. No other source I found says anything about Martin being involved in burglary of any kind (lots of nutjob sources citing this one, shockingly), and it's typical of this kind of "source" to say that the government, various media outlets, and police agencies were all plotting to botch the case just because. BUT WAIT, THAT'S WHAT THE GOVNERMENT WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE RIGHT? WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

Even if he were a thief, it doesn't change the circumstances following the event, which are clearly documented. That's what everyone is so upset about a "poor innocent unarmed kid," genius.

About the source:

Quote:

Dollard announced in 2009 that he had founded a political organization named "the American Constitution and Capitalism Defense Front" (ACCDF) which he said would also be known as Active.[7]

Excuse me while I pass out from laughing.

_________________

Ismetal wrote:

GuntherTheUndying IS THE GAY NUMBER 1, HE DOESNT LIKE TO READ THE TRUTH, SO I THINK THIS PAGE IS FOR GAYS WHO WANTS TO READ MESSAGES LIKE "I LOVE MY BAND", "THEY ARE MY LOVE"

It's really shocking that an all-white jury in the South has given a light-skinned man a free pass for murdering a black child.

Three things:1. The jury wasn't all white, it was mostly white. 2. He was young, but 17 is hardly a child. In most places it's one year away from legally being an adult. 3. I really don't think race had much to do in the acquittal. The fact is that Florida has laws that make it easy for people to kill and claim self defence and get off completely free.

I don't think this case should have ever reached this level of coverage. The media has blown the racial component way out of proportion. I remember at first everyone was acting like a white man got away with murdering a black child completely ignoring the fact that George Zimmerman is only half white and looks Latino. NBC even manipulated the 911 call to make it look like Zimmerman said something blatantly racist when he didn't. Now, Zimmerman almost certainly is racist and a general scumbag, but his acquittal had nothing to do with his race. The prosecution did a very bad job, and due to Florida's laws, the jury didn't really have much of a choice. Zimmerman was not acquitted because the teenager he killed was black, he was acquitted because Florida has crazy laws. Changing the laws that let him walk should be the real issue here.

The media response has been quite over the top, and it does seem like a lot of people truly believe that Zimmerman was let go because the person he killed was black. I've even see people say that this means it is open season to kill black boys. This is just ridiculous and obviously not true. This is one case and it doesn't set a national precedent allowing people to get away with killing black people. I believe in the right to self defence, but Florida's Stand Your Ground laws are absolutely over the top, and in some cases it has led to people getting away with murder, regardless of the race of the person they shot. The outcry here shouldn't be based on racial factors, but based on the fact that Florida's laws are just plain wrong.

17 still technically and legally counts as a child, all social implications aside.

Not necessarily everywhere if you were to reverse the charges. 17 is still close enough to, say, charge someone as an adult for a crime. Not to shoot whatever point you're trying to make.

^ Brilliant, dystopia.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Yesterday was the birthday of school pal and I met the chick of my sigh (I've talked about here before, the she-wolf I use to be inlove with)... Maaan she was using a mini-skirt too damn insane... Dude you could saw her entire soul every time she sit...

Zimmerman was not acquitted because the teenager he killed was black, he was acquitted because Florida has crazy laws. Changing the laws that let him walk should be the real issue here.

This is really what needs to be taken away from this whole shitty business. It's a sad fact that if Zimmerman had done the exact same thing in another state, he would be doing time right now. Instead, he shoots a kid and walks free.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

There are plenty of states where you would be allowed to shoot in self-defense if attacked and subdued. Short of the attacker wielding a deadly weapon himself or the presence of multiple attackers, it's basically the ultimate example where deadly force is justified. In the batshit-insane gun-loving state of New York...

I don't even want to watch Cenk Uyger's response to the verdict, because I know that he's gonna be idiotically liberal about it. Hell, the headline I read about it said that he said that the verdict is a massive victory for pro gun folks. Only a true liberal would think about it in terms like that.

There are plenty of states where you would be allowed to shoot in self-defense if attacked and subdued. Short of the attacker wielding a deadly weapon himself or the presence of multiple attackers, it's basically the ultimate example where deadly force is justified. In the batshit-insane gun-loving state of New York...

That's a totally different situation. The guy was confronting teenagers who were in the midst of committing a crime and tried to detain them while police were on their way. Besides which, the "Stand Your Ground" law doesn't exist in New York. That's really the crux of the issue here - Zimmerman had no legal burden to try to escape. The guy in that article did, but apparently was still justified in self-defense.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Zimmerman was not acquitted because the teenager he killed was black, he was acquitted because Florida has crazy laws. Changing the laws that let him walk should be the real issue here.

This is really what needs to be taken away from this whole shitty business. It's a sad fact that if Zimmerman had done the exact same thing in another state, he would be doing time right now. Instead, he shoots a kid and walks free.

Okay, it's been brought up enough times (including by the world's ultimate anti-bullshitter Morrigan, of all people) that I think I'll just ask it: why? Zimmerman's lawyers did not invoke the Stand Your Ground law. It wouldn't have mattered anyway if Florida didn't have that law, as he was pinned to the ground and had no opportunity to flee. Ergo, to claim Stand Your Ground had any bearing on the case is bullshit. He claimed innocence under standard self-defense law and was acquitted because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.

I think it is completely plausible he would have gotten acquitted in most other states. I also think if he had had a different set of jurors it might have ended in a deadlocked jury. I find it hard to believe he would have met any state's standard for 2nd-degree murder without more evidence.

The burden of proof is on the state to show he intentionally murdered Martin. The fact that he called police to report a "suspicious person" alone casts pretty serious doubt on any prosecutors ability to prove murder. Murderers don't give advance notice to the police that they are about to commit a crime. He also was approved and licensed by the state of Florida to carry a firearm in public.

So, again: what is it about Florida's self-defense law that is fucked up? Because if you want to argue he should have to prove his innocence, then you are basically inverting the entire foundation of the justice system. The legal assumption is always that you are innocent. Otherwise, everyone needs to have one of those little cameras that clip onto your shirt turned on at all times in order to ensure any criminal situation you find yourself doesn't wind up with you in prison.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

we hope you die wrote:

I would happily have 'if you are a false, don't entry' tattooed across my arse.

Yes, you're right about the specific Stand Your Ground bit not being a factor, I confused the terms. But Florida self-defense law doesn't require people to retreat even without the specific Stand Your Ground portion:

"76.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

The actual Stand Your Ground part doesn't come until 76.013.

Earthcubed wrote:

failsafeman wrote:

That's really the crux of the issue here - Zimmerman had no legal burden to try to escape.

He had nothing to escape from until he was pinned to the ground and couldn't.

Which I think is a bullshit story. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by following Martin, and I don't believe for a second that Martin jumped out of the bushes and pinned Zimmerman instantly.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

In a fair fight Trayvon Martin would have wrecked George Zimmerman. A 17 year old can ship to Parris Island, that is a "kid" in legal definition only. Martin was in excellent physical condition compared to pudgy overweight Zimmerman. The time line presented during the trial indicated that it was likely Martin turned backed to confront the "creepy-ass cracker." All the more likely if he was not aware Zimmerman was armed. At the very least he could have surely outrun him.

All of this played a part in winning the jury over. West played the closing arguments masterfully with his speech and the shirtless picture of Martin.

Yeah, guess I shouldn't have brought up stand your ground, as it was no longer all that relevant at the trial point. However, isn't these laws what let Zimmerman walk free after killing him in the first place and made it so that he didn't have to have a toxicology test ect? If he had been arrested and charged sooner I think he would have been more likely to have at least been at least convicted of manslaughter.

I don't see how his age is relevant to his strength in this case either. Look at recent pictures of Martin, he was far from scrawny. And Zimmerman appeared to have wounds on the back of the head indicating his skull was slammed against a hard object (most likely concrete pavement) at least once. And once is really all it takes to get overwhelmed....I don't really want to get into details, but I can personally attest to that. Again, fights don't happen like they do in the movies. Boxers and MMA fighters sometimes get knocked unconscious by single blows to the head from a fighter wearing gloves, and they spend years training and getting used to that sort of punishment.

Fails, that is pretty much a Stand Your Ground law right there. Stand Your Ground implies you don't have a duty to retreat when in a dangerous situation, ever, including a public space. There is no specific mention in that statute of anything like no duty to retreat when in your own home or on your own property, more or less implying it applies everywhere.

I'm not really an especially big fan of Stand Your Ground laws anyway. Mixed feelings on the concept (I have no such qualms with Castle Doctrine). I say mixed rather than against it entirely because while I would like to think that police and prosecutors would be able to obviously tell when it is impossible to retreat and thereby justify defending yourself, I think we all know better than to trust the state that much. There are actually retired policemen instructing self-defense courses who will teach people you are better off killing someone in an unwanted violent confrontation, purely because if they live and they got hurt worse than you do the police/prosecutors will throw everything at you just to make you plea guilty to a lesser crime, even if there's reason to believe you defended yourself (and especially if the "victim" is an excellent liar). And you'll go broke hiring an attorney smart enough to convince a jury to see through their bullshit.

But yeah, if there wasn't such a long history of those sort of judicial antics and it also wasn't a contemporary problem I wouldn't see any reason for Stand Your Ground. A hard Castle Doctrine coupled with standard self-defense laws should be all that is necessary.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

we hope you die wrote:

I would happily have 'if you are a false, don't entry' tattooed across my arse.

Yeah, guess I shouldn't have brought up stand your ground, as it was no longer all that relevant at the trial point. However, isn't these laws what let Zimmerman walk free after killing him in the first place and made it so that he didn't have to have a toxicology test ect? If he had been arrested and charged sooner I think he would have been more likely to have at least been at least convicted of manslaughter.

The police claimed they cited Stand Your Ground but the statute they cited in their justification apparently was not the Stand Your Ground statute. In other words, they said "stand your ground" but then explained that he met the regular self-defense standard. I never really looked into it much beyond that to see which statute it was.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

we hope you die wrote:

I would happily have 'if you are a false, don't entry' tattooed across my arse.

Yeah, guess I shouldn't have brought up stand your ground, as it was no longer all that relevant at the trial point. However, isn't these laws what let Zimmerman walk free after killing him in the first place and made it so that he didn't have to have a toxicology test ect? If he had been arrested and charged sooner I think he would have been more likely to have at least been at least convicted of manslaughter.

The police claimed they cited Stand Your Ground but the statute they cited in their justification apparently was not the Stand Your Ground statute. In other words, they said "stand your ground" but then explained that he met the regular self-defense standard. I never really looked into it much beyond that to see which statute it was.

I just listened to an interview with one of the jurors. She quoted the stand your ground law. It's obvious that they used that law in the deliberations. So yes, it definitely was a factor even if it wasn't specifically quoted in the charges or the defense.

Fails, that is pretty much a Stand Your Ground law right there. Stand Your Ground implies you don't have a duty to retreat when in a dangerous situation, ever, including a public space. There is no specific mention in that statute of anything like no duty to retreat when in your own home or on your own property, more or less implying it applies everywhere.

I know that, but when they talk about waiving Stand Your Ground, it was my understanding that they're talking about waiving this specific part, which actually mentions standing your ground:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.(5) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Rather than the part I quoted in the previous post. The fact is, regardless of the part that talks specifically about Stand Your Ground, Florida lacks the same duty to retreat that most other states have.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Man, obviously if that story is true then the police shouldn't have been firing rubber bullets at the crowd, but at the same time if you go to a protest with a high potential to turn violent while you're pregnant, you're a fucking idiot.

Amen, FSM. A-fucking-men. And you always hear these sob stories about "peaceful protesters being violently attacked with no provocation" all the goddamned time. There is ALWAYS a second side to every story.

Anyway, my view on the whole acquittal is that the jury got it right. I'm not saying that Zimmerman isn't a scumbag, they both were. But, as far as the law goes, they couldn't prove it. I bet they both had an equal hand in sparking the fight. About the whole "unarmed" thing, well, I agree with Napero. But! If someone attacks you, armed or not, if you have a weapon, you will use it.

You just know some other moron's going to try to kill the guy now. Vigilantism is no good. Justice is a sham, but taking it in to your own hands is even worse. Nobody knows what actually happened, and frankly, it's not as if he killed some totally innocent teen who had a whole lot to give society. I just can't bring myself to feel pity for either of them. Nothing about this case is black and white, which is why I'm walking the grey.